MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BHARATPUR Vs. GOKUL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dt. 29-10-1986 passed by the learned Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bharatpur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under O.13, R.2, C.P.C. was dismissed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the impugned order as well as the law cited at the bar.

(3.) The contention of Mr. G.K. Garg, appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that an application was filed on 6-12-1983 for bringing 3 documents on record, all of which are certified copies of judgements of various courts and therefore, are above suspicion. The application was rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that it is belated and that the affidavit filed in support of the application was not in terms of the application itself and no reasonable cause has been shown for filing the documents late. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel that the judgements relate to a suit filed against Brijlal father of the plaintiff non-petitioner 1, by one Rahimulla. The judgements relate regarding the disputed land and the case was decided against Brijlal who filed an appeal and revision, which were also dismissed. It is, therefore, contended that these are relevant documents for just and proper decision of the case, in which the plaintiff non-petitioner 1 claims to be the owner of the disputed land. It is pointed out that in the affidavit filed in support of the revision application, it was stated by the Commissioner of Nagar Parishad, Bharatpur that the source of information regarding existence of the documents was from official record. It is pointed out that the officer-in charge of the case in the trial court got information regarding existence of the documents in question from Panna Lal which fact was mentioned in the official record by him. The Commissioner, therefore, rightly wrote in his affidavit that his source of information regarding these documents was from the official record. Therefore, there was no contradiction between the facts mentioned in the application under O.13, R.2 and the affidavit given in support of the same. It is, therefore, submitted that the documents being above suspicion and the certified copies of the judgements of various courts regarding the disputed land should be admitted so that, justice can be done to the parties.